Tyranny and Order in Sophocles' Tragedies

The article is dedicated to analyzing the issue of tyranny and order in Sophocles’ tragedies, focusing on Oedipus Rex and Antigone. The major research question is the way the term “tyrant” was understood by Sophocles and his contemporaries. The author examines the interpretation of the term “tyrant” within the ancient Greek context, distinct from later Platonic views, with an emphasis on the violation of nomos—the established cosmic order. The study adopts the Cambridge School of Concepts methodology, which emphasizes the significance of terms within their historical context, reveals evaluative attitudes, and analyzes the speech acts in which these concepts are employed.

The analysis demonstrates that, despite their legitimate origins and good intentions, the characters Oedipus and Creon are regarded as tyrants due to their violation of unwritten traditional laws governing the harmony of the polis.

The article argues that the tragedies reflect socio-political processes unfolding in ancient Greek poleis at the time, such as the disintegration of the traditional order, the loss of instinctual connection to the cosmos, and the transition to “secular” laws. The study illustrates the relationship between these processes and their interpretation by Sophocles’ contemporaries, as manifested in the conflict between two schools of thought: the Sophists and the Socratics. The article clarifies the context of Sophistic ideas and their role in developing the concept of the conventionality of laws and morality, contrasted with nomos.

In this study, the author suggests a new interpretation of the term “tyrant,” understood not as negative but as a neutral indication of a violation of cosmic laws.

The study contributes to the discourse on the Greek tragic canon and the logic of polis life, presenting a more accurate understanding of the political significance of the tragedy.

1. Bazhenova E. A. Origins of natural-legal thinking in the ideas of ancient Greek sophists: Protagoras and Antiphon / E. A. Bazhenova // Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – 2019. – Vol. 14, No. 1. – Pp. 9–33.

2. Hegel G. V. F. Aesthetics: in 4 vol. / G. V. F. Hegel. – Moscow: Art, 1969. – Vol. 2. – 326 p.

3. Grinzer N. P. The political meaning of “Oedipus the King”: is there a need for an answer to the eternal question? / N. P. Grintser // Steps / Steps. – 2017. – Vol. 3, No. 4. – Pp. 76–92.

4. Dilite D. Antique literature / D. Dilite. – Moscow: Graeco-Latin Study of Y. A. Shichalin, 2003. – 348 p.

5. Emelyanov A. S. The death of Socrates: key philosophical interpretations / A. S. Emelyanov // Antinomies. – 2021. – Vol. 21, No. 2. – С. 25–44.

6. Zhdanov P. S. The concept of “law” in the context of the Greek worldview of the VI-IV centuries BC / P. S. Zhdanov // Izvestia vysshee obrazovaniya vysshee obrazovaniya. Jurisprudence. – 2014. – No. 3 (314). – Pp. 188–205.

7. Zabudskaya Ya. L. Political aspect in the reception of the myth of Oedipus / Ya. L. Zabudskaya // Steps / Steps. – 2017. – Vol. 3, No. 4. – Pp. 93–106.

8. Plato. State / Per. from Ancient Greek A. N. Egunov. Introductory article. Е. N. Trubetskiy. Commentary. V. F. Asmus. Note by A. A. Takho-Godi. – Moscow: Academic Project, 2015. – 398 p. (Philosophical Technologies).

9. Plato. Collected Works in 4 vol. Vol. 1 // Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 112. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of Philosophy. – Moscow: Mysl, 1990.

10. Roshchin E. History of Quentin Skinner’s concepts / E. Roshchin // Polis. – 2006. – No. 3. – Pp. 150–158.

11. Torubarova T. V. The idea of cosmophysical order in the context of self-determination of human existence (antiquity) / T. V. Torubarova // Modern Science: actual problems of theory and practice. Series: Cognition. – 2021. – No. 4. – Pp. 120–125.

12. Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides. Antique tragedies: per. from Ancient Greek. – M.: Eksmo, 2024. – 672 p.

13. Carey C. (1986). The Second Stasimon of Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus // The Journal of Hellenic Studies. – Vol. 106. – Pp. 175–179.

14. Knox Bernard M. W. (1954). Why Is Oedipus Called Tyrannos? // The Classical Journal. – Vol. 50. No. 3. – Pp. 97–130.

15. Malinowski B. (1932) / Crime and Custom in Savage Society // London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. – 176 p.

16. Parker V. (1998). Τύραννος. The Semantics of a Political Concept from Archilochus to Aristotle // Hermes. – Vol. 126. No. 2. – Pp. 145–172.

17. Stewart E. (2021). The Tyrant’s Progress: The Meaning of ΤΥΡΑΝΝΟΣ in Plato and Aristotle // Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek and Roman Political Thought. – No. 38 (2). – Pp. 208–236.

18. Wohl V. (2002). Love among the Ruins: The Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens – New Jersey: Princeton University Press. – 336 p.

19. Winnington, I. (1980). Sophocles: An Interpretation. – Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. – 346 p.